Ufology in Ukraine: Interview with Igor Kalytyuk - Part 2

"Evidence can be anything: material objects, documented evidence, and information on any media: video, photo, audio, etc. The question lies in the reliability of the evidence, its direct involvement in the phenomenon, and the consideration of all evidence combined without selectivity."


Published 2024-04-21 at 08:16

Reading Reading 6 min.

(continuing from Part 1)

UAP Check: It’s possible to do something effective to bring the truth to the public and to change the mind of those who claim or believe that extraterrestrial beings are living with us on Earth?

So far, we have no reason to believe that we are dealing with extraterrestrial beings, aliens - who they are. It's impossible to answer this within the existing knowledge. There are only a lot of hypothesis, but the hypothesis of travelers in time is the on I'm most sympathetic to. There are mental trauma facts in only some individuals who say that they were "abducted by aliens," but where did they get those mental trauma? - interesting question. I described the rest in my book.

The essence of the approach is to catch an eyewitness to a lie, use the bluff in the course of the dialogue, looking at the gestures and facial expressions, and analyzing the handwriting in a specially designed application for universal application, as well as the adequacy analysis, the measurement of the level of distortion seen by subjective eyewitness convictions, the definition of physical reality and so on. In total, 26 people were examined in the group. Seven (7) of them were caught on perjury (quackery) with the help of a bluff, and also analysis of gestures. Concerning eight (8) participants there were suspicions on different forms of psychic deviations. Five (5) had experience that had nothing to do with physical reality. And only six (6) out of twenty-six passed the test and were of interest to us.

UAP Check: How can we scientifically investigate an unidentified atmospheric phenomenon?

We have to consider the observations and investigate the problem. If it is something new, then we make a scientific assumption, measurements. If nothing known fits the observed results, then we have to experiment, model, try to form an explanation and share it with others: maybe someone else will be able to explain it. Try to draw conclusions and find facts that contradict each of these conclusions in order to refute the hypothesis, since conclusions cannot serve as evidence for a hypothesis. If you or your colleagues fail to refute the conclusions, the phenomenon becomes a fact. However, remember that we cannot claim absolute truth, as new data and new research may emerge over time.

Ufology-news.com Ukrainian website

UAP Check: In your opinion, what is the evidence?

Photo and video recordings of the event, measurement data, and samples of enough quality for further analysis, processing, and conclusions. Evidence can be anything: material objects, documented evidence, and information on any media: video, photo, audio, etc. The question lies in the reliability of the evidence, its direct involvement in the phenomenon, and the consideration of all evidence combined without selectivity. An analysis that considers all the evidence and comprehensively analyzes the phenomenon will be much more reliable.

UAP Check: In your opinion, how do modern technologies, from radars to artificial intelligence, change the rules of the game in UAP research?

First of all, these are photo-video systems with optical and thermal ranges. Radars should also help because they provide data on motion parameters, among other things. However, people perceive only what they can see or imagine clearly enough. A serious reaction to UAP in the 21st-century has been described in a video from an airplane’s electron-optical devices. My fear is that artificial intelligence will add fakes, in the first place.

UAP Check: How do you learn to be a healthy skeptic, not a scornful one?

You are asking what criteria or differences exist? Impartiality, fundamentality, impersonality. Remember that anyone’s perception is subjective, including one’s own personal perception. Accordingly, even "expert perception" should not turn into an automatic rejection of anything that is not to one’s liking. But the main thing is devices and statistics.

UAP Check: Is peer review crucial for ensuring the credibility of UAP research?

It is one thing to read an unverified witness’s letter and comment. It is another to study both photographic and video evidence and draw conclusions. A comprehensive study requires the following: instrumental registration, so that some physical features are recorded; mapping of where it was observed and statistics on what exactly was observed; and summarizing and hypothesizing of physical mechanisms and origins, respectively. If a researcher receives a call and goes to a place where they meet eyewitnesses or perhaps see the anomalous phenomenon itself, then the first step would be to collect as much valuable information, evidence, and measurements as possible before any analysis. It may then be possible to compare the available data with the position of stars or data from airports, for instance.

UAP Check: Logical fallacies to avoid. What are the typical logical fallacies that people make when arguing about UAPs?

Arguing is a mistake in itself. Enthusiasts and the media "logically" impose the idea that if UFOs or UAPs are in the air, they must be aliens on starships coming from outer space. Skeptics, on the contrary, abuse Occam’s razor, insisting on the simplest natural explanations. This is harmful to the unbiased study and testing of the whole variety of origin hypotheses, etc. It is even more so, if there is a mind behind the phenomena and if it tries to hide its activities.

UAP Check: What are main signs that some mass media are preparing a discrediting story?

First, impose their vision of the topic contrary to our views, and second take a comment at the last moment when the plot has already been filmed

UAP Check: What would you wish for your colleagues, what should you focus on?

In my opinion, researchers who are engaged in the study of UFOs with the observance of a scientific approach need to unite to exchange ideas and data. Try to communicate more with each other and unite in whole international sky monitoring networks. The times of sacralization have long passed, and it is necessary to open old archives for digitization and exchange of historical heritage, as it is also our history. We live in amazing times of new scientific discoveries and developments. Don't miss the chance to learn something new!

Igor Kalytyuk & Alina Mykolyshyn, "How to Identify UFOs? How to Investigate AAP?" (2022)

Igor Kalytyuk

Born in 1987, Igor Kalytyuk is an expert of the information and technical department of Ukrainian Scientific Researching Center for Analyses of Anomalies "Zond". He was involved in the examination of UFO testimonies received under the state program from meteorological services within the framework of the State Committee for Hydrometeorology of the Ukraine. He is editor of "Ufology News", YouTube channel "UFO and AAP scientifically", creator of the "Global Archive" project, author of the guide "How to Identify Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)?" , as well as several dozens of articles published in scientific publications.